Table Talk (OOC)

They may have met only briefly, and it isn't a certain thing that Regulus saw through the illusion in that short a time. I seem to remember that the Ease Factor made it uncertain (I am away from my books at the moment).

So make a roll (no need to post it here) and adjust your post accordingly if you want! :grinning:

6+ mag of the creature's Might, according to the core book (not sure if RoP:M brings in any different rules applicable to the case).

With the aura bonus Regulus will surely notice, unless he botches (which he didn't, I just rolled).

Julius is hidden by a Hermetic MuIm effect (a lesser enchantment ring created by Leonardus, who was strong in Muto), not an innate power. This may change the Ease Factor.

She certainly isn't martial enough anyway!

In that case it would be 6+mag of hermetic effect. If the effect magnitude is no higher than 4 he still makes it with ease due to the magical aura (+3 Per, +2 Second Sight (hermetic effects), +5 aura +0 (minimum possible value for stress), beating EF 6+4. Note that SS doesn't need to penetrate).

I think Leonardus expertise wouldn't really change anything? The item effect will be lvl 35 if I'm not mistaken, and Leonardus could surely manage a lvl 70 lab total for such an invested device, but the spell effect itself would still be level 20 (assuming the ring has some version of "The Phantom Image").

But even considering the full level of the ring, the effect's magnitude is 7. Regulus makes it with a bit of luck (10 + stress against EF 13, he needs to roll 3 or above. I rolled a 7).

1 Like

What has that got to do with swearing an oath?

Swear:

  1. make a solemn statement or promise undertaking to do something or affirming that something is the case.
  2. use offensive language, especially as an expression of anger.

Some Christians would say that a Christian shouldn't swear; their words are to be true without the need for oaths. Swearing is unnecessary at best and corruptive at worst.

If we want to get nitpicky...

... (I think we don't), I'm not sure if that is the orthodox view of oaths on medieval Christianity. Or if, for example, swearing an oath would be seen as heretical (instead of simply "inadequate"). From the sheer amount of oaths and swearings in medieval texts I'd say it's only inadequate, but I'm no expert.


Matthew 5:34-37

34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

Fun aleatory fact: there is at least one documented instance (to my knowledge) of people swearing "by the straw", meaning "by the one who made this straw". Thus you could meet someone on the street and make an oath "in the name of God" without asking if that person is muslim or jew... I mean, if he is a muslim and you two swear "by God" (assuming you are catholic) that doesn't bind him, because he believes in Allah. But if you swear "by the one who made this piece of grass"... =]

So nobles and knights are bad Christians for swearing fealty to their lords or king? And monks are bad Christians for taking an oath of of celibacy? :laughing:

From all the killings (look at the Crusades!!!), I'm sure nobles and knights are bad Christians. XD
Idk about the monks. =9

It's a matter of personal belief, I suppose.

When and where we are it would probably mark you as a Waldensian, a reformist biblical literalist group of Burgundians formed in the late 12th century, who are about to be declared heretics in 1215. Refusal to swear oaths was used as evidence of membership in the group for the next 50 years as it was persecuted.

However, it is still not officially heretical yet and it would not be an unheard of position in the area

2 Likes

Not a big deal, and not really something to worry about. I just found it strange, but was putting it down to a translation quirk.

Oh yeah, I just enjoy obscure Christian heresies. It is a weird hobby, no doubt.

Also, the Waldensians would absolutely have called knights, kings and monks bad Christians for swearing an oath, which was a big part of what fucked everyone off enough to get them excommunicated and then persecuted.

Also, they still exist!

This has been heresytalk, a Fleetwood podcast. Like and subscribe to receive more Christian heresies on a bi weekly basis. :smiley:

Maybe you should do a "30 days of heresy" next november! :wink:

So this will get interesting for the apparent Waldensian on our midst? I take it no PC is enough of a theologian to figure that out yet?

Regulus has a bit of knowledge on that, but nothing to write home about (Theology 1 (heresy)).

I think they will get interesting, but how much depends on how Father Luc and the monks from the nearby abbeys would react to rumors of Waldesians in Laimunt. I'm totally on board for that story, when the time is ripe. =9

I feel we have deep dived on a small comment. :slight_smile:

Indeed. Unless Julia confirms that it was her intent to express some sort of theological statement from Eikona, I am putting down the comment to a simple linguistic misunderstanding.

I thought she was acting historically correct (see Matthew).

Anyway, I, as a player wouldn't ever swear any oaths, but I keep my promises if at all possible. The only vow I have ever sworn was my marriage vow. I am state employed, but I didn't add "so help me God" when asked to promise my loyal service to the state, because that would have been blasphemous.

I guess I am truly a Protestant.

Sorry for causing a complication.

Sorry for going off on a heresy thing (because that is a genuine interest of mine). Medieval people required a holy oath to do damn near anything. Also, some medieval people noted that all this oath taking was explicitly against scripture, as you rightly point out. Everyone gets angry :slight_smile: